What did GW have a pair of? Peanuts for brains maybe. First, he didn't take firm control of the housing issue in 02 which is the biggest part of the deficit. He was wishy washy on housing policy at best.

Franco, this isn't quite true. Bush pushed regulation of Fannie and Freddie quite vigorously. As Richard states the housing bubble began during the Clinton years. Especially in 98 and then again later part of 99. July of 99 I was part of a Clinton Housing Summit that kicked off at the Pine Ridge Souix reservation. Clinton doubled down on the CRA(Community Reinvestment Act) requirements that Carter put in place in 76. This was in 98 and then again in 99. These requirements force banks to lend to people in targeted communities. Depositories have to meet certain CRA percentages when it comes to mortgage lending and if they do not they can suffer steep consequences. In 03 and 05 I helped to prepare tesitmony and testified before Congress pushing for greater regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Bush was completely behind this regulation. However Both Barney Frank and Maxine Waters completely shot down any and all efforts to get any type of legislation through the House Financial Services Committee and sub-committee. I believe Frank's words that day were that Fannie is functioning fine and he saw no need for any increased regulation at all. By the way Frank's significant other worked for Fannie at the time. Maxine Waters was on the Housing Sub-Committee under the HFS Committee and she also worked to kill any legislation coming out of that sub-committee. So regardless of what many people may say Bush did not start the housing bubble. He also backed many attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddie but was blocked by Frank and Waters every step of the way. In the Senate Chris Dodd also blocked any attempts on that side of Congress. Not saying the Housing industry didn't have a hand in the mess, certain large players in the industry certainly did. The biggest of which was Countrywide. Ever wonder why Angelo Mozilo was never prosecuted for his hand in this mess. He had quite a few Senators and Representatives in his pocket. Dodd and Conrad in the Senate Banking Committee and Frank and Waters in the House Financial Services Committee. They all were beneficiary's of his services in one way or another.

Now lets talk about letting the Wolves into the Hen house. We have Dodd/Frank legistlation supposedly to regulate the evil bankers on Wall Street and mortgage companies who started all of this mess. Hmmm. Makes you wonder?

10-16-2012, 09:50 AM

caryalsobrook

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Danis

Franco, this isn't quite true. Bush pushed regulation of Fannie and Freddie quite vigorously. As Richard states the housing bubble began during the Clinton years. Especially in 98 and then again later part of 99. July of 99 I was part of a Clinton Housing Summit that kicked off at the Pine Ridge Souix reservation. Clinton doubled down on the CRA(Community Reinvestment Act) requirements that Carter put in place in 76. This was in 98 and then again in 99. These requirements force banks to lend to people in targeted communities. Depositories have to meet certain CRA percentages when it comes to mortgage lending and if they do not they can suffer steep consequences. In 03 and 05 I helped to prepare tesitmony and testified before Congress pushing for greater regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Bush was completely behind this regulation. However Both Barney Frank and Maxine Waters completely shot down any and all efforts to get any type of legislation through the House Financial Services Committee and sub-committee. I believe Frank's words that day were that Fannie is functioning fine and he saw no need for any increased regulation at all. By the way Frank's significant other worked for Fannie at the time. Maxine Waters was on the Housing Sub-Committee under the HFS Committee and she also worked to kill any legislation coming out of that sub-committee. So regardless of what many people may say Bush did not start the housing bubble. He also backed many attempts to reign in Fannie and Freddie but was blocked by Frank and Waters every step of the way. In the Senate Chris Dodd also blocked any attempts on that side of Congress. Not saying the Housing industry didn't have a hand in the mess, certain large players in the industry certainly did. The biggest of which was Countrywide. Ever wonder why Angelo Mozilo was never prosecuted for his hand in this mess. He had quite a few Senators and Representatives in his pocket. Dodd and Conrad in the Senate Banking Committee and Frank and Waters in the House Financial Services Committee. They all were beneficiary's of his services in one way or another.

Now lets talk about letting the Wolves into the Hen house. We have Dodd/Frank legistlation supposedly to regulate the evil bankers on Wall Street and mortgage companies who started all of this mess. Hmmm. Makes you wonder?

Thanks for the post. I haven't seen anybody yet argue with your facts. I might add that the CRA does nothing but FORCE banks to make loans of much greater risk without the opportunity of greater rewards. The current Administration's granting loan guarantees for certain loans is a prime exmple for sure. Furthermore the CRA diverts money from less risky loans to those of higher risk, not a very good business practice and I suspect creates a perfect atmosphere of corruption.

10-16-2012, 10:55 AM

menmon

CRA loans are not what caused the crash. Most banks meet their CRA requirements by financing churches and hospitals, neither of which are usually risky.

Easy money pushed up valuations...in other words, folks being able to get an 80% advance rate from freddie and fannie and then 20% more from a home equity lender. When the home equity or subprime loans became non-performers, 20% of the money holding the values were lost. This is what cause the downward pressure. Fannie and Freddie are nothing more than conduits. Putting savers with borrowers.

10-16-2012, 10:57 AM

caryalsobrook

Quote:

Originally Posted by menmon

CRA loans are not what caused the crash. Most banks meet their CRA requirements by financing churches and hospitals, neither of which are usually risky.

Easy money pushed up valuations...in other words, folks being able to get an 80% advance rate from freddie and fannie and then 20% more from a home equity lender. When the home equity or subprime loans became non-performers, 20% of the money holding the values were lost. This is what cause the downward pressure. Fannie and Freddie are nothing more than conduits. Putting savers with borrowers.

If they were not risky then WHY did the gov. need to FORCE banks to make the loans?

10-16-2012, 06:06 PM

Jim Danis

Obama, also represented ACORN in a lawsuit to force an Illinois lender to provide loans to borrowers who did not actually qualify for those loan. He used CRA requirements as part of his means to force the lender to comply. Of course this was during his community organizing days

10-16-2012, 08:01 PM

Julie R.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Danis

Now lets talk about letting the Wolves into the Hen house. We have Dodd/Frank legistlation supposedly to regulate the evil bankers on Wall Street and mortgage companies who started all of this mess. Hmmm. Makes you wonder?

Excellent post Jim--I'm appalled that so many people want to blame the housing bust on Bush. And speaking of wolves and foxes guarding the chicken house, Obama certainly has a few of them in positions of power in his administration as Cabinet officers and "czars" (the ones that would never pass Senate confirmation hearings). I wrote about that damn CRA here on this board 3 years ago. See my post in this thread http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?37698-SubPrime-Mortgage-Explaination&highlight=community+reinvestment+act I had a friend who owned a bank that was forced into compliance of CRA quota loans in Washington D.C. during the Clinton administration that nearly went under because of being forced to make bad loans to meet the "quotas".

10-16-2012, 08:06 PM

Julie R.

Quote:

Originally Posted by menmon

CRA loans are not what caused the crash. Most banks meet their CRA requirements by financing churches and hospitals, neither of which are usually risky.

Wrong....there were quotas banks in certain areas had to meet. Quotas that were not met by 'lending money to churches and hospitals'. I recently took a course for my real estate brokerage continuing education which included several case studies as part of the legal section.